Supes:Tannhauser: I also vote for a less gritty Batman. No origins! Unless it's not Batman. I'd kinda like to see him teach Robin how to beat up bad guys, just don't go full Schumacher.

Never go full Schumacher.

See I'd love to go in the opposite direction. An even darker Batman, couched in realism, a guy with severe emotional/mental problems and has no problem killing to get his point across. R-rated movie of course.

Let Superman be the noble hero. Batman's a different sort of character.

What you describe is the Punisher-not Batman. One of the great things about Nolan was that he understood the concept that what makes Batman a hero was that he wasn't out for revenge.

It's one of the reasons I wasn't too big on the Burton films was Batman running around killing people.

Wayne 985:The entire purpose of Batman is to save lives and avoid killing. Batman is great because he's a dark malcontent who is also more noble than any of the "Boy Scout" heroes. He's the perfect combination.

Your idea is bad and you should feel bad.

Batman originally had no problems killing his enemies. It stopped around the introduction of Robin and trying to slant the comic towards younger readers, and was reinforced by the Comics Code Authority. By the time the CCA lost its importance, the "no killing" had become a part of the Batman mythos already... and oddly regardless Batman still has shown the willingness to kill in certain rare circumstances (and he keeps files out to kill all his fellow superheroes!).

I'll tweak it though to make people happy. A darker, grittier Batman. He doesn't kill, but has no problem torturing (psychologically or physically) to get information he needs.

JokerMattly:Erix: mechgreg: Then wait a year or two and hire Clint Eastwood to direct Batman Beyond and also play crotchety old Bruce Wayne.

That would be awesome. I'm in.

I could also get on board with this. Eastwood actually reminds me of old-Wayne a lot, now that I think about it.Who plays Terry, though?

No one we know now, I hope. He's supposed to be in high school, and I'm getting tired of seeing 28 year olds trying to act like they're 17. 24 should be about the max age allowed for an actor trying to play that kind of a role. I'd be happy with a relatively unknown actor in the role.

Gunther:There isn't really a need for ANY origin story - it's always the least interesting part of the superhero, yet it's the one we always get a movie focusing on.

I don't know about that. I felt the origin stories in the original Spiderman and Iron Man were better than the hero/villain portions.

In the case of Batman, however, I agree that an origin story would be redundant without a complete reinterpretation of the character (which just may happen). I think it's pretty clear that Nolan conceived this (at least at a basic leve) as a trilogy with a beginning, middle, and end. The key to continuing the series is going to be whether they decide to take that approach again or if they decide to just make movie after movie after movie, a la James Bond or Indiana Jones. If they decide the latter, they really should just drop Batman in as an already accepted piece of the story.

buntz:I would just like a Batman movie that exists in a universe where other superheroes are possible (or even mentioned)

I prefer Nolan's version where neither other superheroes nor even comic book superheroes exist. The entire idea of Batman putting on the costume to turn himself into a symbol takes on a completely different tone in a world where people already have an idea in their head about superheroes and what they represent.

Erix:No one we know now, I hope. He's supposed to be in high school, and I'm getting tired of seeing 28 year olds trying to act like they're 17. 24 should be about the max age allowed for an actor trying to play that kind of a role. I'd be happy with a relatively unknown actor in the role.

As awful as I feel saying it out loud, Taylor Lautner reminds me a lot of Terry looks-wise.Shame he is an awful actor.

ShawnDoc:They can always point to the stupid magic microwave gun in the first one, and say "We may suck, but at least we aren't that stupid".

I hated that so much. The movie was in the realm of stretched plausibility until that point. But if you have a device that evaporates all water within a half mile radius, well, the human body is 70% water, so yeah.

Sybarite:buntz: I would just like a Batman movie that exists in a universe where other superheroes are possible (or even mentioned)

I prefer Nolan's version where neither other superheroes nor even comic book superheroes exist. The entire idea of Batman putting on the costume to turn himself into a symbol takes on a completely different tone in a world where people already have an idea in their head about superheroes and what they represent.

It also kind of cheapens things a bit when Batman has to give everything he has to fight the Joker or stop Bane (speculation) when someone like Superman or The Green Lantern could handle those dudes so quickly that you wouldn't even see what happened. Seriously the only dude in Nolans batman universe with a superpower was the dude who had the super power of being able to survive having half his face blown off and being able to live with a face without skin or any bandages.

That said I guarantee WB wants a universe where Batman and Superman can meet.

Supes:Wayne 985: The entire purpose of Batman is to save lives and avoid killing. Batman is great because he's a dark malcontent who is also more noble than any of the "Boy Scout" heroes. He's the perfect combination.

Your idea is bad and you should feel bad.

Batman originally had no problems killing his enemies. It stopped around the introduction of Robin and trying to slant the comic towards younger readers, and was reinforced by the Comics Code Authority. By the time the CCA lost its importance, the "no killing" had become a part of the Batman mythos already... and oddly regardless Batman still has shown the willingness to kill in certain rare circumstances (and he keeps files out to kill all his fellow superheroes!).

I'll tweak it though to make people happy. A darker, grittier Batman. He doesn't kill, but has no problem torturing (psychologically or physically) to get information he needs.

Actually, even the Golden Age Batman only killed as a last resort option. The majority of that time, the villain killed themselves. One of the earliest stories: Batman and the Monster Men-a whole truckload of super hulked out men were being sent to Gotham. Batman states: "Normally I hate taking human life, but I don't have any other choice."

Robin in his first story, kicked a man who was trying to kill him off of a construction site.

Still, by the 3rd year of Batman, the writers realized that Batman worked far better as a non killing hero...way before the Comic Code Authority

mechgreg:Sybarite: buntz: I would just like a Batman movie that exists in a universe where other superheroes are possible (or even mentioned)

I prefer Nolan's version where neither other superheroes nor even comic book superheroes exist. The entire idea of Batman putting on the costume to turn himself into a symbol takes on a completely different tone in a world where people already have an idea in their head about superheroes and what they represent.

It also kind of cheapens things a bit when Batman has to give everything he has to fight the Joker or stop Bane (speculation) when someone like Superman or The Green Lantern could handle those dudes so quickly that you wouldn't even see what happened. Seriously the only dude in Nolans batman universe with a superpower was the dude who had the super power of being able to survive having half his face blown off and being able to live with a face without skin or any bandages.

That said I guarantee WB wants a universe where Batman and Superman can meet.

In some ways it does cheapen everything to have superman exist in any universe (even his own), but the comics make it work without batman being in a bubble I don't see why the movies couldn't as well.

When you think about it Lex Luthor as a villain makes no sense at all either why doesn't superman just slam dunk his face into the moon or something?

JerseyTimWhich is why they shouldn't reboot it. Just tell Batman stories. They don't even have to be connected or maintain continuity. At this point, we really don't need an origin story. We get who the character is.

Jim from Saint Paul:Doogled: What if the guy they hire can actually film a coherent fight scene?

Jim from Saint Paul: Fano: Can't beat mask of the phantasm and return of the joker, but we've watched idiots blow billions trying.

The Dark Knight belongs right up there.

/my favorite is still BB: RotJ.

Batman Begins is better than Dark Knight. Also, I'd argue that Red Hood had the best story of the movies, and John DiMaggio did a very good job with the Joker.

Where does your opinion of BB being better then TDK come from?

Specific examples if you could.

I don't think I've actually watched either movie since I saw them in the theaters, but I'll do my best to give specific examples. Aside from the Ledger's performance not living up to the hype (Return of the Joker or Under the Red Hood have much, much better Jokers), the Dark Knight had a fair amount of scenes that really didn't add to the movie and caused me to roll my eyes enough that I was no longer "into" the movie. Specific examples include all the scenes involving the two ferries deciding whether or not to blow the other one up and Fox's objections to the tracking system. In fact, scenes like those felt like watching Sorkin's Newsroom in that Nolan continually beat you over the head with his point, and that's really distracting to me. I'd also argue that Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul were just better versions of their comic book characters than the Joker and Two Face. Up until Crane was defeated by farking Rachel Dawes, Nolan did an amazing job displaying the hallucinogenic effects that Crane's drugs use. Aside from a few moments (sticking his head out of the window in the truck, the magic trick, and the opening sequence), the Joker really didn't feel like the Joker.

Anyways, again sorry I haven't watched the movies since they came out, but I tried to give some reasoning.

Supes:...I'll tweak it though to make people happy. A darker, grittier Batman. He doesn't kill, but has no problem torturing (psychologically or physically) to get information he needs.

Don't we already have that? I've been playing Arkham City and Batman holds people over ledges and threatens to break their bones if he doesn't get information. In The Dark Knight, he drops Sal Maroni and breaks his leg or ankle.

mjohnson71:They waited about 20 years between Adam West "Batman" and Michael Keaton "Batman" (at least live-action wise.) That sounds about right.

/And Star Trek should have been given 10 years or so to rest

except that the 2009 movie kicked much ass, and other than Khan is arguably the best of the Trek motion pictures.

1 - sucks.2 - good, but dated. Ricardo chews much scenery.3 - just terrible. don't try to defend it. it farking sucks.4 - watchable, fun, but hardly much of a trek film. (WE HAVE NO BUDGET THEREFORE 80's)5 - dear god.6 - oh dear god.generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)first contact - seemed ok until you watch it now. ruins the borg, and every single scene on earth sucks. also, useless black actress.

let's not talk about those last two TNG films.

and then 2009 Star Trek. Great effects. Great story. Great characters fully nailed by young enthusiastic actors. Awesome. Makes the other films on the whole look terrible. yes, lensflare and all, but it really isn't nearly as noticeable as fark makes out. I saw the film in theaters day of release and didnt notice until fark,

frepnog:mjohnson71: They waited about 20 years between Adam West "Batman" and Michael Keaton "Batman" (at least live-action wise.) That sounds about right.

/And Star Trek should have been given 10 years or so to rest

except that the 2009 movie kicked much ass, and other than Khan is arguably the best of the Trek motion pictures.

1 - sucks.2 - good, but dated. Ricardo chews much scenery.3 - just terrible. don't try to defend it. it farking sucks.4 - watchable, fun, but hardly much of a trek film. (WE HAVE NO BUDGET THEREFORE 80's)5 - dear god.6 - oh dear god.generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)first contact - seemed ok until you watch it now. ruins the borg, and every single scene on earth sucks. also, useless black actress.

let's not talk about those last two TNG films.

and then 2009 Star Trek. Great effects. Great story. Great characters fully nailed by young enthusiastic actors. Awesome. Makes the other films on the whole look terrible. yes, lensflare and all, but it really isn't nearly as noticeable as fark makes out. I saw the film in theaters day of release and didnt notice until fark,

Considering that The Undiscovered Country and First Contact were two of the top three of the pre-2009 Star Trek movies, I think it's safe to say that we can completely ignore your opinions entirely. You're a bad person for not liking the same things I like and you should feel bad.

/Also, you didn't notice the lens flare? Seriously? Even my (then) 6 year-old son noticed it. "Dad, why are all the lights on the ship so sparkly?"

And make it all REALLY dark -- darker than the Chris Nolan films. Retarded Batman would throw criminals off ledges, bash in the skulls of thugs, and destroy public property using his super retarded person strength (you know that retarded people have super human strength, right?)....

Retarded Batman would be a huge smash. Plus, it would empower all of those retarded folks out there who will actually be willing to pay money to see the next reboot.

Doogled:Jim from Saint Paul: Doogled: What if the guy they hire can actually film a coherent fight scene?

Jim from Saint Paul: Fano: Can't beat mask of the phantasm and return of the joker, but we've watched idiots blow billions trying.

The Dark Knight belongs right up there.

/my favorite is still BB: RotJ.

Batman Begins is better than Dark Knight. Also, I'd argue that Red Hood had the best story of the movies, and John DiMaggio did a very good job with the Joker.

Where does your opinion of BB being better then TDK come from?

Specific examples if you could.

I don't think I've actually watched either movie since I saw them in the theaters, but I'll do my best to give specific examples. Aside from the Ledger's performance not living up to the hype (Return of the Joker or Under the Red Hood have much, much better Jokers), the Dark Knight had a fair amount of scenes that really didn't add to the movie and caused me to roll my eyes enough that I was no longer "into" the movie. Specific examples include all the scenes involving the two ferries deciding whether or not to blow the other one up and Fox's objections to the tracking system. In fact, scenes like those felt like watching Sorkin's Newsroom in that Nolan continually beat you over the head with his point, and that's really distracting to me. I'd also argue that Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul were just better versions of their comic book characters than the Joker and Two Face. Up until Crane was defeated by farking Rachel Dawes, Nolan did an amazing job displaying the hallucinogenic effects that Crane's drugs use. Aside from a few moments (sticking his head out of the window in the truck, the magic trick, and the opening sequence), the Joker really didn't feel like the Joker.

Anyways, again sorry I haven't watched the movies since they came out, but I tried to give some reasoning.

It's cool. Just wnated to understand.

Personally, the Joker in the Red Hood and Return may have good voice acting, yet it is the SAME joker from B:TAS. The character isn't done differently, with the exception of actually having some real VIOLENCE from the Joker. Joker in the B:TAS world was creepy as hell, yet he still didn't do alot of stuff on screen like he did in those movies. He is basically the 60's batman with the creepiness turned to eleventy.

That doesn't cut it if you are trying to bring something different to the table. YMMV of course, I just don't see where they are night and day better then this Batman world's Joker. Ledger's Joker worked well for this interpretation of the world. The first 2 movies of this trilogy have had a grounded, believeable sense to them. They have enough reality to have us think "Hey this COULD happen" in the back of our minds, yet enough fantastical stuff to remind us it's a comic book movie. You can;t have B:TAS Joker and achieve that.

And make it all REALLY dark -- darker than the Chris Nolan films. Retarded Batman would throw criminals off ledges, bash in the skulls of thugs, and destroy public property using his super retarded person strength (you know that retarded people have super human strength, right?)....

Retarded Batman would be a huge smash. Plus, it would empower all of those retarded folks out there who will actually be willing to pay money to see the next reboot.

I watched part of 89 batman on TV last week and it really doesn't hold up. The effects are bad, the sets look totally fake on my HDTV, Jack Nicholson is chewing the scenery really badly and Burton doesn't seem to understand that the Joker isn't just a mob boss with face paint or that Batman shouldn't have machine guns and bombs on The Batmobile. The only thing I thought that really worked was Keaton's performance.

frepnog:mjohnson71: They waited about 20 years between Adam West "Batman" and Michael Keaton "Batman" (at least live-action wise.) That sounds about right.

/And Star Trek should have been given 10 years or so to rest

except that the 2009 movie kicked much ass, and other than Khan is arguably the best of the Trek motion pictures.

1 - sucks.2 - good, but dated. Ricardo chews much scenery.3 - just terrible. don't try to defend it. it farking sucks.4 - watchable, fun, but hardly much of a trek film. (WE HAVE NO BUDGET THEREFORE 80's)5 - dear god.6 - oh dear god.generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)first contact - seemed ok until you watch it now. ruins the borg, and every single scene on earth sucks. also, useless black actress.

let's not talk about those last two TNG films.

and then 2009 Star Trek. Great effects. Great story. Great characters fully nailed by young enthusiastic actors. Awesome. Makes the other films on the whole look terrible. yes, lensflare and all, but it really isn't nearly as noticeable as fark makes out. I saw the film in theaters day of release and didnt notice until fark,

I find it hard to believe that fans didn't enjoy Star Trek 2009 but then again I'm responding to someone who didn't enjoy Star Trek 6. It wasn't exactly a masterpiece of cinema but it was a damn sight better than and doesn't deserve to be worse in ranking than Star trek 5.

The Avengers is kid stuff compared with this meditation on mortal loss and heroic frailty. For once a melodrama with pulp origins convinces viewers that it can be the modern equivalent to Greek myths or a Jonathan Swift satire. TDKR is that big, that bitter - a film of grand ambitions and epic achievement. The most eagerly anticipated movie of summer 2012 was worth waiting for.

I created this alt just for this thread:frepnog: mjohnson71: They waited about 20 years between Adam West "Batman" and Michael Keaton "Batman" (at least live-action wise.) That sounds about right.

/And Star Trek should have been given 10 years or so to rest

except that the 2009 movie kicked much ass, and other than Khan is arguably the best of the Trek motion pictures.

1 - sucks.2 - good, but dated. Ricardo chews much scenery.3 - just terrible. don't try to defend it. it farking sucks.4 - watchable, fun, but hardly much of a trek film. (WE HAVE NO BUDGET THEREFORE 80's)5 - dear god.6 - oh dear god.generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)first contact - seemed ok until you watch it now. ruins the borg, and every single scene on earth sucks. also, useless black actress.

let's not talk about those last two TNG films.

and then 2009 Star Trek. Great effects. Great story. Great characters fully nailed by young enthusiastic actors. Awesome. Makes the other films on the whole look terrible. yes, lensflare and all, but it really isn't nearly as noticeable as fark makes out. I saw the film in theaters day of release and didnt notice until fark,

Considering that The Undiscovered Country and First Contact were two of the top three of the pre-2009 Star Trek movies, I think it's safe to say that we can completely ignore your opinions entirely. You're a bad person for not liking the same things I like and you should feel bad.

/Also, you didn't notice the lens flare? Seriously? Even my (then) 6 year-old son noticed it. "Dad, why are all the lights on the ship so sparkly?"